The majority voted against an amendment introduced by Victorian Senator Ricky Muir, which means it was unsuccessful.

What was the amendment?

The amendment would have removed the grandfathering provisions from the bill. These provisions mean that the old compliance system continues to apply to particular companies - in this case, some 1500 companies.

The grandfathering of exempted proprietary companies was done to avoid disrupting businesses which would have established themselves under other business forms, if they had known that they would have had additional compliance and reporting requirements which might be subsequently introduced.

However, those who supported Senator Muir's amendments argued that the grandfathering provisions were meant to be temporary and that the time has come to remove them (read the whole debate after 7:28pm).

What does the bill do?

The bill strengthens the laws against tax avoidance for certain companies. For example, it introduces anti-avoidance measures to deal with multinational companies with an annual global income of more than $A1 billion that use schemes to avoid having to pay tax in Australia or at least reduce that tax to a minimum.

The majority voted for this amendent, which was introduced by Greens Senator Richard Di Natale, which means it was successful.

What was the amendment?

The amendment introduced new provisions that mean that Australian companies with a total annual income of $200 million or more will have to report certain tax information so it becomes public. That information includes the company's ABN, its total annual income, its taxable income and its tax payable.

The Labor Party opposed this amendment and said the threshold should be $100 million.

Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi rebelled against his colleagues (which is known as crossing the floor) and voted against this amendment because he believed it went against a policy his party room had previously agreed on.

What made this amendment controversial?

Even though the Greens Party earlier agreed with the Labor Party that the threshold should be $100 million, they made an agreement with the Coalition Government to support a higher $200 million threshold. They did this because they thought it was better than nothing. Read ABC News for more information.

The Labor Party were not pleased.

What does the bill do?

The bill strengthens the laws against tax avoidance for certain companies. For example, it introduces anti-avoidance measures to deal with multinational companies with an annual global income of more than $A1 billion that use schemes to avoid having to pay tax in Australia or at least reduce that tax to a minimum.

What does the bill do?

The bill strengthens the laws against tax avoidance for certain companies. For example, it introduces anti-avoidance measures to deal with multinational companies with an annual global income of more than $A1 billion that use schemes to avoid having to pay tax in Australia or at least reduce that tax to a minimum.

What was the amendment?

The amendment insisted that Australian companies with a total annual income of $100 million or more should have to report certain tax information so it becomes public. That information includes the company's ABN, its total annual income, its taxable income and its tax payable.

The Coalition Governmnet opposed this amendment and said the threshold should be $200 million.

Why was it so controversial?

Even though the Greens Party earlier agreed with the Labor Party that the threshold should be $100 million, they made an agreement to vote with the Coalition Government and reject this amendment. They did this because they thought it was better than nothing. Read ABC News for more information.

Through it all, Greens Senator Richard Di Natale kept trying to explain why the Greens were voting against the amendment (and therefore voting with the Coalition Government) - here is a taste of his explanation.

Meanwhile, the Chairman warned the angry interrupting senators that:

"I can at this point advise senators that I have cancelled my flight tonight. So I am in no hurry to finish this, but we will finish this with the Senate having some order."

What does the bill do?

The bill strengthens the laws against tax avoidance for certain companies. For example, it introduces anti-avoidance measures to deal with multinational companies with an annual global income of more than $A1 billion that use schemes to avoid having to pay tax in Australia or at least reduce that tax to a minimum.

This amendment would require all companies (both Australian and international) with a revenue of $1 billion a year or more to give a general purpose financial report rather than a special purpose financial report, "which are scant in their detail" (see Xenophon's full explanation).

What does the bill do?

The bill strengthens the laws against tax avoidance for certain companies. For example, it introduces anti-avoidance measures to deal with multinational companies with an annual global income of more than $A1 billion that use schemes to avoid having to pay tax in Australia or at least reduce that tax to a minimum.

How
"voted moderately against"
is worked out

The MP's votes count towards a weighted average where the most important votes get
50 points,
less important votes get
10 points,
and less important votes for which the MP was absent get
2 points.
In important votes the MP gets awarded the full
50 points
for voting the same as the policy,
0 points
for voting against the policy, and
25 points
for not voting. In less important votes, the MP gets
10 points
for voting with the policy,
0 points
for voting against, and
1
(out of 2)
if absent.

Then, the number gets converted to a simple english language phrase based on the range of values it's within.

No of votes

Points

Out of

Most important votes (50 points)

MP voted with policy

0

0

0

MP voted against policy

0

0

0

MP absent

0

0

0

Less important votes (10 points)

MP voted with policy

1

10

10

MP voted against policy

3

0

30

Less important absentees (2 points)

MP absent*

1

1

2

Total:

11

42

*Pressure of other work means MPs or
Senators are not always available to vote – it does not always
indicate they have abstained. Therefore, being absent on a less
important vote makes a disproportionatly small
difference.